At the end of this process when the US and Iraq have finished conspiring to judicially
kill this man, whi is going to believe that the process had anything to do with a fair trial.
Even the current judge does not believe that this is happening and i resigning because of government pressure.
"The chief judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein has tendered his resignation in protest at pressure from the Iraqi government on himself and the court, a source close to the judge told Reuters on Saturday.
High Tribunal officials were trying to talk Kurdish judge Rizgar Amin out of his decision, the source said, adding that Amin was reluctant to stay on because Shi’ite leaders
Advertisement
had criticised him for being too lenient on Saddam in court.
“He tendered his resignation to the court a few days ago but the court rejected it. Now talks are under way to convince him to go back on his decision,” he said. “He’s under a lot of pressure; the whole court is under political pressure.”
"He had complaints from the government that he was being too soft in dealing with Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants. They (government leaders) want things to go faster.
“There’s too much pressure … All this is too much, it is a question of integrity,” the source said. “I am not sure if he will go back on his decision. I don’t think it’s possible.”"
I don’t think you’ve properly described the facts in your thread title. What the judge thinks is that he is under a lot of pressure. What will make the trial unfair is if he lacks the wherewithal to handle it.
If the trial were taking place in Britain and the Government was on record complaining publically about how easy a ride the defendant was getting from the judge, the trial would be stopped immediately.
saddam has grabdstanded and shown up when he wanted and not shown when he didn’t. he has lectured the court and has conducted prayers when they were not appropriate or authorized by the court. he has been treated much more leniently than any defendant has a right to be. I don’t find the govt poonting that out to be unfair
if I were on trial for murder I would have to be in court and follow its rules wether I like it or not. what is unfair is letting saddam run roughshod over thw process.
It is for the court to sort that out, not the government. If you were on trial, would you appreciate the Government making public criticism of the conduct of the case?
In the “win the hearts and minds” campaign of unifying Iraq and (hopefully) knocking the legs out from under Islamic extremists, we cannot be seen to dick around with this trial.
Granted, the hardcore extremists have already made up their mind, and the only way we’re going to change it is with a rapid infusion of lead poisoning. But the “vast, silent middle” is still fertile ground for extremists’ recruitment efforts, especially after each incident like Pjen posted in another thread.
Or after Saddam’s judge (a Kurd no less!) tosses in the towel and says, “Look, why don’t you just declare him guilty, shoot him, and put an end to this farce?”
Saddam did a lot of bad things to a lot of people; like any good top-down strongman, he also knew who his friends were, and did a lot of good for them. So if we really want to do something to help quash the insurgency, we have to give Saddam a fair and impartial trial. We cannot be seen as trying to strong-arm the judicial process into a foregone conclusion
You mean those who are going to give Saddam a fair trial and then take the son of a bitch out and hang him?
I don’t think Saddam deserves much sympathy, but I would bet that most people in the US have made up their minds as to what the outcome should be, if they have thought about his trial at all.
Legally speaking the court would have justification in “stopping” a trial simply because the national government was making public comments about it.
Why do you think this would happen in the UK? What legal principle would justify the halting of a trial simply because the government was criticising its conduct? Any lawyers care to weigh in here?
Would the court simply say, “We’re stopping the trial it’s over, everyone go home.” How would the non-resolved issue of criminal charges against the person be resolved? How could a judge dismiss charges not based on evidence or procedure but based on what someone completely outside the trial process said?
To answer your question, I wouldn’t appreciate it but I also wouldn’t consider it a violation of any civil rights of mine.
Anyways, I’ve yet to see any evidence that under the laws and legal system that govern Iraq Saddam Hussein’s trial has been unfair, all I can see from your linked article is that the judge doesn’t like the pressure and scrutiny he is under.
That doesn’t equate to a trial being conducted inappropriately in a legal sense.
Its to do with two concepts that have fallen into disuse in the US recently:
Separation of Powers- the courts should be allowed to carry out their business within the law without hindrance from the Executive or Legislature.
Right to a a Fair Trial- remember that, but of course that was before Guantanamo and the Attack on the Constitution. The Court is meant to be influenced only by the arguments before it. If the most powerful part of the society is criticising from the outside, then this would be seen as undue extra-legal pressure.
Still, that’s what happens when you start letting the government take your rights away one by one.
Your kidding right? A person cannot criticize the judiciary because they are part of the government? Every high profile trial has political pressure in one form or another. Yes, even in the UK. It is not up to everyone else to remain silent about it. It is up to the judges to ignore it. Ever hear of freedom of speech? I am sure that trumps a judge’s right not to be criticized, if there is such a thing where you come from.
I’m not so sure about the hearts-and-minds argument. I think that a fair number of hearts and minds might be won over by stringing him up in a public square and letting people have at him.
Cite? What constitutes "the Government’? One government official? The President? A Supreme Court Justice? The entire Parliament?
The defense lawyer could certain petition that a mistrial be declared, but what mechanism would cause the trial to “be stopped immediately”? Do you mean suspended or disbanned?
If the trial had been taking place in Britain (or the U.S.), the grandstanding and disrupting tactics of Saddam would not have been allowed, and complaints would not have been necessary.
At least as concerning as the prospect of any government pressure to convict Saddam, is the possibility that the judge has allowed the Saddam circus in his court out of fear of retribution by Saddam loyalists and that a guilty verdict may be impeded by these pressures.
One wonders whether this and future trials are best moved to an international tribunal outside Iraq, assuming of course that the political climate abroad would be any more conducive to a fair verdict.
Note: the OP’s case would have been better served without the predictable descent into ranting about the e-vils of America.
The whole process is a bit of a farce. The court and it jurisdiction were called together after all the acts committed: as ex post facto as you can get.
Personally, I believe leaders that set themselves above the law and dictate the law cannot possibly expect to be afforded due process of the law. It’s almost obscene. Killing or punishing them extra-judicially sets no precedent for anyone other than dictators brought down in exceptional circumstances.
There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that evidence of grave misdeeds can be provided against Saddam. However your argument that those who set themselves above the law can’t expect due process would apply to any lawbreaker wouldn’t it?
ANY pressure from one party to the litigation (the State vs. Saddam…) attempting to sway the impartial judgement of the presider as to admissability of evidence, adequacy of expert credentialling, availability to the defense of arguments based upon jurisdiction, or sovereign immunity, or necessity of state, or what have you.
e
would, in all common law jurisdictions give rise not merely to a mistrial, and a grant sua sponte of change of venue outside the jurisdiction of the offending party (the state) and COULD, (and has in some US cases) result in dismissal of the case for prosecutorial misconduct so grievous as to taint the right of the government further to prosecute.